Hillary Clinton gives liberals 2008 deja vu

Hillary Clinton is giving some liberals flashbacks to 2008, and not in a good way.

Progressives are wincing over Clinton’s foreign policy comments in a blockbuster interview with The Atlantic, saying her statements are excessively hawkish and reminiscent of her past support for the war in Iraq. Some foreign policy experts, meanwhile, are criticizing her views as too simplistic; one analyst called them downright disloyal to President Barack Obama.

Text Size

-

+

reset

In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton called Obama’s decision not to back Syrian rebels early on a “failure;” stood staunchly with Israel in its fight against Hamas; took a tough tone on Iran; and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.”

Clinton has always been more of a hawk than Obama, whom she served under as secretary of state during his first term. But for many liberals, whose enthusiasm will be important if she runs again for president in 2016, her comments simply felt like code for Bush-era interventionism.

“She basically seems to be taking positions that are very similar to the vision of America’s role in the world that [in 2008] Democrats rejected,” explained Michael Cohen, a fellow at the progressive Century Foundation. That approach, he said, was “out of touch with Democrats in 2008, and it’s out of touch now.”

Prominent liberal writer Joan Walsh wrote at Salon.com that she expects to support Clinton if she runs in 2016, but she called the interview “sobering.”

“Clinton may think she can write off the anti-interventionist left — again — and win the White House this time,” Walsh warned. “But she may find out she’s wrong this time, too.”

And Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped publish Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks, sniped on Twitter that Clinton is “demanding more militarism and violence.”

In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton positioned herself as an experienced hand who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” She was pilloried for that by the Democratic base, and the war-weary grass roots turned instead to Obama, who was able to position himself as the more anti-war candidate.

Polls today also indicate that Americans have little appetite for much overseas engagement, even as chaos is erupting in theater after theater — including Iraq, where Obama recently authorized airstrikes against Islamist militants. (Clinton’s interview took place before Obama’s decision and coincides with the promotion of her new memoir, “Hard Choices.”)

At the same time, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from earlier this month showed Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” Fairly or not, Clinton’s interview was seen by many political observers as an opportunity for her to separate herself from an unpopular president, and some found that distasteful.

“My understanding is that there’s political utility in her bad-mouthing the president now,” said Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group. “But it’s bad for foreign policy. It is disloyal …When Hillary does it, it’s a bigger deal. It does more damage.”?

One Obama ally described Clinton’s maneuver this way: “Inevitable. Predictable. Authentically HRC in a fashion that reminds people like me why we opposed her so strongly in 2007.”

A Clinton aide replied that the interview, posted over the weekend, “was a long-planned-for target on a list of interviews around the book — and not part of an overarching political strategy related to 2016, or anything else for that matter.”

One key difference in the run-up to the presidential race this time, in contrast to 2008 is that, for Democrats, there’s no clear, competitive alternative to Clinton. Liberal grass-roots darlings such as Elizabeth Warren have said they are not running, and there’s no Obama-like figure on the scene. Also, unlike 2008, there is no other candidate who can overwhelmingly win black voters, a key part of the base, like Clinton could.